By all means view everything I say as a failure.
Not everything, just all your attempts at an explanation, as you are yet to actually explain why things fall down.
All you're doing is cheating yourself from finding the truth in favour of indoctrinated theories/duping.
No, that would be if I accepted your nonsense.
I get that people like yourself like to live off numbers and calculations. I get that you always want formulas and equations to allow you to understand something.
It isn't to understand. It is to test and to make use of it.
A vague pile of nonsense with a bunch of hand waving can pretend to match anything.
But that makes it almost impossible to test and entirely useless.
If you have formulas, you can then predict things. It makes it useful. It also allows much easier testing.
I play by my own rules. It's called basic logic and the use of experimentation from my side.
You certainly play by your own rules, but that definitely doesn't involve logic or experiment.
Experiments and simple logic continually refute you.
I ask you and others to use that line of thought. It appears you won't or can't seen to grasp basic stuff.
Or, I know this might sound insane to you, but maybe we do use logic and experiment and find your nonsense to be nothing more than a massive pile of self contradictory nonsense?
It's all there so if you can't grasp it then reject it as nonsense.
Well if that is the case, rejecting it as nonsense is the rational thing to do as you are yet to provide any justification for the directionality.
[GRAVITY]
Stop with the distractions. If you want to discuss gravity do it on another thread.
Ignoring gravity just means we don't have an alternative. It doesn't mean your nonsense works. And your nonsense, even if accepted, works just as well on a sphere.
So they use their brains and not simply reference what I'm asking them sling a copy and paste effort out with the answer of " look it up."
So pretty much to waste their time and avoid answering any questions?
You have shown that you don't care. So the appropriate response is to tell you to look it up.
When clearly I have a totally different take and yet people like you come out with this nonsense.
Yes, you clearly have a different take, which is clearly nonsense.
You are the one coming up with nonsense here.
It pays to think, not to simply just read text and accept without thought.
And we do think, which is why we don't just accept your nonsense.
The dense mass (structure) of any object will displace it's own dense mass of atmosphere, or water.
Nope. It displaces its volume. There is no way for it to magically displace its own mass.
The only time it does that is when it is neutrally buoyant, e.g. water, in water will displace its own mass of water, and objects floating on the interface between water and air will displace their own mass of water and air.
You say this because you know it proves what I'm saying.
No. I say it because I know it disproves you. If I knew it proved what you were saying I would say so.
It's why you won't do the experiments and nor will others who go on like you.
No, even the results you have reported show your nonsense to be wrong.
I have done some of the experiments and they also show you are wrong.
You are the one who refuses to do experiments.
Weight does not exist until you measure
If that was true, everything would float in the air until they were put on a scale.
Weight is the downwards force acting on an object. Without that the object would not move down unless they are pushed by people or the like. With some contexts it includes the contribution from buoyancy and the centrifugal force. In other contexts it includes one but not the other, and in others it includes neither.
It doesn't magically only exist when measured.
dense mass against atmospheric resistance to it on a scale plate to give a reading defined as weight.
Nope. That would be a reading of pressure if anything, not weight.
So why not explain the sink half full of water scenario.
What "sink half full" scenario?
Do you mean with your plug, if so, I have explained that. It shows you are wrong.
But here's a real key point to prove it is the atmosphere pushing back on the dense mass of water displacing that atmosphere.
That is part of the key point to prove. As well as proving it is the atmosphere pushing it, you also need to prove the directionality.
But the experiment when conducted properly (rather than just a single run which provides no information) shows that isn't the case at all and instead it is the water creating this pressure, not the atmosphere and it can act in any direction.
Again, make it basically no water, you can then easily remove the plug. Instead change the water to mercury and it is even harder. This shows it isn't the atmosphere. Put the plug on the side, or in the L setup described above and now it is hard to push the plug sideways or down, showing the atmosphere isn't magically pushing down.
Place a board in that sink with a rubber seal around its edges and push that board as close to the water level in that sink as you can.
Now take off the U bend and poke out the plug from underneath.
And this is another great example of it not being the air. If it was the air it would now be easy to push the plug out, but it isn't unless you create a partial vacuum above the water.
If you think it's the water then that water should drain out of the sink all over the cupboard.
But what happens?
Well unless you are using a tiny drain (where then you run into issues of surface tension and the water dropping down creating a partial vacuum and thus not falling), it all falls.
Rather than going to all this effort, we can do something much simpler:
Get a glass, fill it with water to the brim, get a flat piece of plastic and put it over the top of the glass.
Now flip the glass over and remove the plastic.
According to you, the water should remain in the glass. But what happens? It all falls out.
(If you are reliant upon the plug being pushed up, then use a bottle instead with a makeshift plug, the same thing happens).
We have already had this conversation before and you failed to explain the observed results.
Your model predicts the water remains in the glass while reality has it fall out.
You predict drink bottles are almost entirely useless.
You know this is correct and you should also know that it is all down to atmospheric pressure no matter what.
The above shows you are wrong. I know you are wrong.
Displaced fluid obviously has an upward force because atmospheric push ensures that force of the dense mass displaces that fluid to push right back into that atmosphere.
Action/reaction in equal force.
That make no sense at all.
From what I think you are trying to say, if that was the case all objects would float.
Instead, the pressure gradient in the fluid results in an upwards force.
This even applies to gases, including the atmosphere.
I did and I think I explained it well.
You are yet to explain it. You thinking you did doesn't mean you did.
You still have the atmosphere magically pushing down, for no reason at all, even through solid objects.
A boat half submerged in water is a classic example of pushing down by atmosphere.
No it isn't. It is a rare case.
A classic example would need to be an object in mid-air, surrounded by air, yet still magically pushed down.
What else can push it down?
That is the question for you. We know it isn't the atmosphere (at least when it is out of water, or completely in water).
Stop with the distractions. If you want to discuss alternative models, make a thread for it.
Either try and understand it and stop using the old " I can't understand why down" carry on
People try and understand. But you are yet to provide a justification for the "why down" part, so people continue to ask.
Now, care to try explaining why things fall?
Again, we know it isn't the atmosphere, as that pushes in all directions. This means an object in midair will be pushed from all directions by the air. Due to the pressure gradient naturally existing in air and other fluids, this will result in a slight net upwards force on the object from the atmosphere, not down. In order for it to be pushed down, it needs a greater pressure from above than below.
We know it is not due to more atmosphere above the object than below, because if we take into an isolated system and have it at the top, it still falls down even though there is more accessible atmosphere below.
We know it is not due to moving it away from the ground, as if we move it away from a wall it isn't pushed back into it.
Again, don't bother with pathetic distractions of asking us how it works with mainstream science. This is a thread to discuss your model. If you wish to discuss other models, start a new thread.